Total posts: 468
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I highly doubt they are crap at whatever game they are playing. They are likely good to some extent. At least, the girls i know are pretty damn good at the game they play. People that play video games tend to watch videos online to get ideas and learn strategies they didn't think of. Or, as just a tutorial run. Lastly, it's just fun watching someone else play a game you like. It's like any sport. When you watch someone else play you want to play or get motivated in playing so it's more fun.
I think it would depend if you're playing for fun, playing for money or playing to get better. If you're not playing to get better, it doesn't matter how much you play, in terms of improvement. There's only so much experience can help you get better, before you need to introspectively think about how you'll get better.
Why watch a girl? The majority a people playing games are guys... of course they'd rather watch a hot girl play the game instead of a guy. So... in theory, it is actually pretty easy. If your hot and play the game you can make money. However, you can't be crap at the game... so it isn't all that easy since games require a lot of strategy and practice to get good at. If you are just hot and crap at the game... well, you can still get lucky if you have a fun personality to listen to and watch. It requires a specific type of person to be able to be popular on Youtube and other similar platforms. Watch the videos and you'll see they all of the same thing in common... they are good at what they do, they are well spoken, bright, fun to listen too, witty and give off a positive vibe. Put all of that together, it isn't that easy unless you get lucky that you are the one only hot Youtuber that has views... but, if that's all it is you'll like be made fun of instead of actually have interested followers. In sum total... it's not easy.
If people are only watching the game because you're hot, personality and playing ability won't factor. Sure, you might be made fun of for being bad at the game, but I don't see why that would stop people from being attracted to you.
Would you say that girls, who play the game poorly and have boring personalities, are completely unable to earn money, even if they're hot?
Created:
Posted in:
Personally, I have zero interest in playing videogames. They indicate that a person has very little going on in their lives, they are addicted to wasting their time, and that the person playing them likely has shoddy social skills.
Having said that, I've recently been wondering as to why a girl can get on Twitch, play a videogame rather poorly and receive a bucketload of money. I understand that the girls in question dress in certain ways to enhance attraction, but wow, why do guys give them so much money? Is there some kind of trick? Is it easy to do?
Just wondering...
Created:
-->
@sadolite
I think that clip is overly pessimistic to foster comedy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Topic to post ratio, ideally should remain less than 2%. You are not here to educate people but to be educated.
This is no time for trolling,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Yeah, sounds like you're going well with them. I guess there aren't more people like you because personal finance isn't taught to any serious degree at school. Just a guess, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I'm not joking. I see no reason why anyone would or should care about their post/comment ratio. The only thing I can imagine is that if someone has an abnormally high of threads posted relative to comments made, that such a person probably has an overinflated opinion of themselves and the worth of their opinions.
You just pushed it too far. As soon as SamStevens gets back, he's going to doxx you. I would start erasing your name and moving to a new country, before it's too late. If people find you, they'll make the KKK look like Dora the Explorer.
Created:
Posted in:
"You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realise this and you will find strength" - Marcus Aurelius
These words have proven incredibly valuable throughout my life thus far, and I'll explain why.
Whenever I think about the world and all its problems, I am overwhelmed. I find that reminding myself of Marcus' words helps to shrink the size of the world in to a tiny, manageable sphere. I can see where my efforts are best delegated, rather than having my head spin. Sure, there will be events beyond my control that will affect me negatively, but there is little use in being worried about them -- something I have to constantly remind myself of.
Rather than banal platitudes of 'just be positive', or something equally as useless in its nebulous abstraction, Marcus' words have me focusing on how my thoughts can help me do the best with what I have.
It's okay to be powerless, in the grand scheme of things, if your input cannot alter the result. Realising that you determine whether you to live in a fuliginous cesspool, or a non-stop golden opportunity dream world, helps so much in preparing to face the world.
So when reality grows tough, I always first think 'what can I do?', rather than wallow in the despairs of misfortune. It's about having a realistic, positive interpretation, rather than merely being ignorantly positive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Why would anyone care about their post/topic ratio?
I hope for your sake that you are joking...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You're going to be fine. The hardest part about maintaining a healthy topic/post ratio is accepting that it is important. You're going to have a lot of people tell you not to take the site seriously. It's just a test of your faith.
You won't turn into RM (he's tier 3 anyway, so it's not the worst fate).
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Huh, I didn't know that about Oscar and the place he lived.
Thank you for the new information :)
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
You have to understand that in our culture, men are supposed to initiate courtship, and that's the way it goes ninety eight times out of a hundred, probably. If he's interested in you, he can't wait for you to show interest. Because he's most likely gonna be waiting forever before he receives any sort of unambiguous signal.
Sure, some girls think they're being too available by giving an indication of interest that is actually detectable by guys. Personally, I always find that an early, quick wink gets things moving along.
So he has to just go for it, and then find out afterwards whether or not you're interested. It's like a coin toss.
I think most girls make it clear enough whether they're interested or not. I know guys sometimes struggle with social cues, but even then, when a girl is playing with her hair, laughing at your dumb jokes or smiling at you, chances are she likes you. If you're not incapable of reading body language, I reckon it's more like an 85%.
If a guy never asks a girl out, he will die single and alone. And that's something most people would prefer to avoid. Since the probability of being rejected is high, he usually has to ask out several people before getting a match. By "several people" I mean whatever women he's had enough contact with to deem a potentially suitable partner, who potentially might show interest or willingness to him. A woman who he hangs out with a lot would probably be near the top of that list.
I don't think the probability of being rejected is high at all. I think that if a girl is showing interest in you, you'll wind up with her like 85% of the time. You shouldn't be just randomly approaching girls. You should be waiting to read their body language, and then responding to that. A woman who hangs around him is more likely to just want to be friends, elsewise she'd give some pretty overt indications of interest (I know I certainly would).
Some guys just never have the guts. Other guys take almost any ambiguous signal (such as a polite smile or polite laughter at a half-@$$ed joke) to mean a yes and so they go for it, no holds barred. Because when two people of the opposite sex interact, communication difficulties can easily ensue.Courtship is very often preceded by friendship. It can sometimes be difficult for a guy to tell when trying to take things to the next stage is inappropriate (again, miscommunication), unless she tells him off the bat, which she might feel to be too awkward a conversation to have (and so she doesn't).If a guy continues to attempt courtship with her after this convo has been had, I'd have a lot less sympathy for him. I'd also have very little sympathy with a guy who started out with "Hey, wanna bone?", though forgive me if I'm skeptical of the claim that anybody either here or on DDO did that to you, except perhaps out of malice (the reasons behind which should escape no seasoned user here).
Yeah I think not only some guys are just too shy, but most guys. It's like they need permission to take the relationship anywhere. All you need to do as a guy is gradually increase the intimacy of the interaction, and it becomes pretty clear what stage you can take it to. If you're met with a firm "no" (not a playful no), or body language which shows that she's uncomfortable, you've reach the stage that she's comfortable with.
The guys who ignore overt rejection, or just skip to a whole heap of intimacy, aren't going to be very successful.
Your best bet would be a guy who's in a situation where he's not looking for somebody, though among people of your age finding a male person in that kind of situation is sort of unlikely. Many are generally apathetic towards dating but would run with an opportunity if handed to them. Just approach one of those guys, signal interest in friendship only, and poof. There you go. Platonic thingamajig established.
Oh I'm not desperately looking for male friendship.
Women don't have to worry about finding a mate. Guys will literally flock to them, and then they pick one. So many guys, in fact, that they complain about it. Save an exceptionally unattractive woman, not being able to find a mate is something that women usually aren't going to have a problem with. So as for those guys who seem to always be pestering you, you can't understand where they're coming from. You'll never have to deal with rejection, or being alone. A ton of guys would give an eye and a limb to be in your shoes. So don't be so quick to judge, ladies.
This thread was more about friendship between men and women, rather than courting realities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It's okay, Mr Dudz. Life is meant to be challenging. You haven't turned toxic; don't be so hasty in relinquishing hope.
You know what is right, and thus what you must do.
Created:
Posted in:
It's an unwritten law on Dart that your topic/post ratio defines you as a human. Maintaining a healthy ratio is crucial to spiritual development and self-actualisation. If you fail to maintain a healthy balance, people will talk ill of you behind your back, your significant other will cheat, and you will not have the power of God and anime on your side. For these reason, this will be the most important thread of 2019.
Here is a list of the tiers. Added are brief descriptions of likelihoods at each tier. Neither the tier list or descriptions are open to debate:
(Tier 4) <1%: You are a mindless sheeple who even Alex Jones can't convince that the NWO is taking over. Your posts are littered with spam and socially awkward phrases. You are likely mentally ill with urges to play Mafia. You blend into the background of any social interaction in irl, and the worse thing is that you prefer it that way. People, including those on Dart, probably don't know you have an account on here. You inspired J.K Rowling's invention of the Invisibility Cloak. When people do find that you have an account, they feign kindness and compassion, but secretly are disgusted with your cowardice. When we find you, you will be punished.
(Tier 3) 1-5%: You have fallen upon hard times. Mentally disturbed, you either refuse to accept the importance of topic/post reality, or you're too impotent to enact your will. People with healthier topic/post ratios will pity you, and so you will be offered help. You must accept their grace with open arms. Do not give in to the temptation to play Mafia. Do not post poorly formatted reaction memes in forums. Stop the descent into irreversible escapism and begin making topics of substance.
(Tier 2) 5.01-9%: You are mentally sound but lacking the courage to stand up for what is right. Your threads can be appreciated, but people more readily appreciate the thread, rather than you. Your significant other will likely leave if he/she discovers your topics/posts percentage, but there is hope in your life. Remember that life is tough -- don't blame yourself entirely for having this topic/post ratio. Chase the topic/post ratio you know is right.
(Tier 1) 9.01-10.99%: You understand the grand importance of topic/post ratios. You have hordes of hot, attractive men/women/both continuously tailing you, pleading for your recognition. Your ratio is so other-worldly that genderologists on Tumblr are unable to define your gender. Bsh and Virtuoso are incapable of banning you because the ban button literally disappears, whenever you enter this magnificent tier. With words alone, I cannot begin to express the virtuous and noble nature that this topic/post ratio brings.
Legend says that if you reach the golden 10% ratio, you will finally be welcomed into the Dart Elite.
(Tier 3) 11-25%: You have become careless or drunk on your topic/post ratio, and thus given into the temptation of gluttony. You are a dreadful sight to behold, because you have corrupted the sanctity of the topic/post ratio. Every moment you linger with this ratio, edb8 becomes more viable. Reject gluttony. Do not toy with the powers of topic/post ratios. Accept the virtuous nature of 10% or else suffer the consequences.
(Tier 5) +25%: You drown every social event with unwanted ideas. No one listens to what you say, and in fact they cannot wait for you to leave. Your threads are used in torture techniques by U.S and Ugandan governments. You are a pariah, a wicked nuisance who is incapable of redemption. I am honestly writing this in anger of how much you are a thoroughly sub-human piece of shit. DO NOT plague us with your presence. You are to leave immediately after requesting your account be permanently and wholly deleted. When the day of rope occurs (i.e. ad spam and forfeit glitches), you will be the first in the noose. Begone.
Created:
Posted in:
It seems common sense to state that stress is something which is negative. After all, we tend to avoid stressful situations, and being under stress isn't something we naturally enjoy.
However, there are actually several ways in which the body can respond to stressful circumstances, and some of them might be surprisingly useful. Psychologist Kelly McGonigal posits the idea that if you feel challenged when stress takes hold, it can actually help you shift into a state wherein the body has increased blood-flow to both your muscles and brain. This, in turn, allows the brain to pay better attention to everything in your environment, which is better than the tunnel vision experienced in a fight or flight response. To be terse, you're basically smarter with a challenge response to stress.
So, in the future, don't become anxious when you see your sweat, and don't try to calm down when your heart beats faster. View your stress as a resources, see the stressful event as a challenge, and you will enter a state which is superior.
Created:
"Between men and women, there is no friendship possible. There is passion, enmity, worship, and love, but no friendship" - Oscar Wilde.
No longer being alive, we can only guess at how Oscar concluded this.
However, I'd like to critique the quote itself, at least on its conclusions.
Friendship, to me, involves a mutual connection that benefits both people. Better friendships dissolve the natural boundaries people have towards other people, because larger levels of trust are involved.
I can agree that the majority of men and women can't be friends. From personal experience, most of my discussions with men have devolved into variations of suggesting sexual intercourse (suggestions which only the man seems to give). Some take as little as one response before they devolve into said mode, whilst others take weeks or months. Certainly, these relationships are not ones in which friendship could flourish, because they are forged by the more powerful bonding agent known as lust.
Are we to assume that all interactions between men and women are as such? I, for one, have experienced conversations, some of which were extended over months, that have never devolved into status descriptions of penises, or inquires into my attire. Am I to assume that underlying the interaction, the man was biding his time to spring the sexual innuendo? Or perhaps there was a genuine friendship forming?
Can I not trust a man will my wellbeing, if he is not spellbound by lust? I feel, that in Oscar's conclusion, that this has to be an implication. Therefore, I'm not convinced that friendship between men and women can never manifest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrChristineFord
If I could tell my 15 year old self not to use those pictures, and I think she would listen, I would do it. However, I can't. I made a mistake as a depressed, broken and desperate 15 year old and there isn't much I can do to undo that. I really didn't want to be alive or myself, and so I decided to pretend to look like someone else.
Well over two years ago, I stopped using those pictures. I've made it clear that the pictures are not me. People like you, Dr Christine Ford, continue attack and create drama about something that cannot be fixed further. You need to relax.
But the alarming issue is how people have responded to this:
(1) We've had imabench and YYW (coal) watch hours upon hours of Youtube footage, attempting to find me at my university graduation, in an attempt to doxx me. They then posted her linkedin and other contact information on DDO, in an attempt to have her attacked by trolls. This has dragged a completely different Cassandra into this.
(2) We've had zmikecuber relentlessly hunt down information about me, in order to find Rachel's Facebook and personal life, and then posted this information on DDO. Who knows how many hours he spent doing this. He then attempted to blackmail me into posting a picture of my real self, Facebook and revealing my identity, or else he would harass Rachel for the information. He ended by gossiping about every private conversation we've ever had.
(3) We've had SamStevens come out of the blue to launch this doxxing campaign against me, after well over a year of it happening on DDO (and thus no one really caring about it). He's dragged all the people I supposedly am back into it, thereby allowing them to be attacked again.
I mean, why would anyone want to post their real pictures on here, given the utterly toxic reactions it provokes? I'm not excusing the fact that I made a mistake as a 15 year old, but wow, just look at how callous these people have been. I'm just so thankful that we have moderation which is clamping down on this horrible doxxing, of which is dragging innocent people into this.
Again, please stop harassing these innocent people. I've made it clear that I'm neither of them. All you're doing is inciting trolls to harass and attack innocent people. There is no need to continue this petty drama.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
You continue to construct your argument whilst not addressing the dilemma, and thus you still (accidentally) have the issues raised in the dilemma. Fallaneze is doing a much better job at addressing the dilemma. I suggest you look at how he deconstructs the dilemma.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
In short, when someone is "morally good" we're referring to their disposition or will. "Moral goodness" cannot exist apart from the mind, period, since both are only attributes of the mind. So one half of the dilemma fails.
I honestly can't think of a worthwhile counter-argument to this -- you've convinced me.
The other half, determining whether God's goodness is arbitrary or not, depends on whether God's nature is essential or inessential. If God's nature is essential, goodness is not arbitrary. In light of this, the dilemma fails.
Even if God must have moral goodness as a property (essential), why is it not arbitrary? Why does it matter that what he does is morally good? If I do something that is morally wrong, what does that matter? Unless you want to argue that his moral goodness is in accordance with a promise of Heaven or whatever (which I don't think you do, given that you don't appear Christian/Muslim etc.), why should it matter what he deems morally good?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I have two questions for this:
(1) How likely do you think either of these scenarios are? From what I can tell, the majority of Whites aren't interested in their race's wellbeing, so I'm not convinced that they're likely going to defend it with violence.
(2) If either does happen, are we talking about a nuclear bomb wiping out a 1/4 of the Earth? Are we talking about a country plagued by chemicals of chemical warfare? I'm not sure governments would allow such a brutally inhumane conduction of warfare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrChristineFord
Please calm down. Your antics are dragging innocent people into this.
Created:
Posted in:
I think there's two things we can agree on, because I am neither of these people:
1) We should leave Rachel alone
2) We should leave alone the Cassandra that Daniel Bench mentioned
It would be disappointing if a petty DDO/Dart flamewar spilled into real people's lives. Let's not let that happen.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't know you personally well enough to know if you're being intentionally ironic (if you were, then your comment was slightly amusing), but the dilemma destroys both of these cases.In the case of condemning murder it's the former; in the case of condemning eating shellfish it's the latter!
Created:
-->
@Mopac
And nobody is surprised.That doesn't make any sense to me.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
If God is essentially good, then good is neither apart from God
If God is essentially good, then is good God?
If I say something nice to someone who is feeling down, is that good action literally God?
How literal are you being with "God is essentially good?"
nor is it arbitrary as the dilemma implies.
How would you prove that "God being essentially good" is meaningful?
Created:
Found in Plato's dialogue, the modified version is this: Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God
(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God's will
(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God's will
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good
(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God's moral goodness or to worship him
(6) There are reasons both to care about God's moral goodness and to worship him
Therefore:
(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God
Therefore:
(8) Divine command theory is false
Created:
As technology continues to progress, human ethics are bombarded with new questions. One of those questions involves the usage of people's cells.
Without question, using the cells of a person, whilst the cells are still attached, isn't ethical, barring explicit consent. However, if the cells are to be removed, should there be consent? It was a question raised at a workshop for the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center's Department of Bioethics.
Currently, researchers are allowed to use people's cells without their permission, so long as the personal identifiers are removed (i.e. anonymized).
Grady et al. (cited in the link below) outlined 5 reasons why consent for usage of cells might be of interest:
(1) It respects donors
(2) It allows donors to have control over whether their samples are used for research purposes
(3) It allows donors to decide whether the risks and burdens of research are acceptable to them
(4) It allows donors to decide whether they want to contribute to the goals of the research as opposed to only using their samples for particular areas of interest
(5) It promotes transparency and public trust.
Furthermore, and this is a question that wasn't raised in the internet article, is what happens if a human clone is made, and then cells are taken from that human clone. Are the cells the property of the human clone? A similar question: what if robotic wires were taken from a human cyborg (assuming they exist in the future). Would that require consent?
Naturally, science isn't bound by ethical laws. It will be interesting to see how humans of the future handle these questions, or perhaps ignore these questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I wrote this thread with the intention of countering the common argument of, "don't use a credit card". I really wasn't terribly interested in economic and macro-societal issues with the existence of credit cards, because I think societal decay is unflappably cyclical, and problems of usury and psychological exploitation always occur in this stage of civilsational decay. I think it's too much of a leap of faith to claim that people not protesting low wages is solely the fault of credit cards, although it certainly seems a major factor. I think it's also myopic to say that credit cards are the root of the problem, because this kind of monetary greed seems to occur during societal decadence. In other words, credit cards are a problem that can't be stopped.
Nevertheless, I can certainly see how poor people are screwed by them (or else banks wouldn't offer cashbacks). If I was poor and without an emergency fund, I would never touch a credit card. Then again, I'm sure you would argue that poor people aren't always in the best psychological state to make clear decisions. It's certainly a problem that badly hurts poor people, and even rich people with an unrelenting quest for material possessions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Oh right, I forgot that I'm not competent. Could you teach me how to be that? I really want to make a movie, of which probably took dozens of hours to produce, only to have no one care about it. But yeah I do remember that time. I remember being suicidal, depressed out of my mind and having uncontrollable emotions. No wonder I regretted protesting the Weekly Stupid, and, even worse, actually being attracted to you. Just goes to show that I hit rock-bottom.
Aww that's a shame :( I was loving our friendly, nostalgic chat, but I guess it's better if you pretend to have things to do. That way, you won't feel like you've wasted 8 of your adult years stuck in adolescence, endeavouring in a litany of useless achievements on DDO and irl. After all, we want the best for you, Benchy :) I'll make sure to PM you so you can hide all of the nasty things you say to me from everyone, just like you used to do (and by "nasty" I mean witty banter. And by "hide" I mean uphold a healthy respect for privacy).
I look forward to hearing from you <3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
That's so strange. I have no recollection of giving out my full name. You must be an absolute genius, if you think you'd be able to guess my name, based on that. No doubt you are a genius, given your penchant for wasting your life with videogames, enjoying a cartoon designed for little girls, and getting banned over 8 times due to same mistake. I'm honestly surprised your name isn't Daniel Einstein.
My pleasure to ask. I was really worried that he was struggling with the shame of having a complete failure of a son whom is 26, hasn't achieved anything in his life, and still unironically enjoys Frozen (I'm sure it's one of your brothers). It's great to read that he's doing "pretty well" (which I assume means he pulled through), because it would be an absolute tragedy if the shame was too much for him and he took the easy way out. No doubt he's still fighting :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
How strange to randomly attempt to guess my name like that, Daniel Bench.
Nevertheless, I've been fantastic. How has your dad been? I heard he's been a bit slow recently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Wow, you finally wrote something worthwhile, Daniel.
See what you can do when you're not busy with cringey, immature trolling?
*rousing applause*
Created:
RM, I've become partial to ignoring your usual hysterical bs. I started to think, "you know, this guy has been through a lot. I'm going to stop teasing him with slightly mean comments".
But this is serious bs that strikes close to home.
You AGREED with me that Mandela was a terrorist AND that he conducted torture and lynches. Sorry, but anyone who does that doesn't deserve to be respected in my books, and you're a despicable coward for supporting that kind of activity.
Even if white under apartheid engaged in systematic rape and murder (highly debatable, and certainly something that should be shamed if true), that doesn't mean it's okay for the overthrowers of apartheid to rape and murder the whites. Wtf is that kind of logic -- it's literally tit-for-tat and you're as bad as the people you complained about.
I don't want ANYONE of ANY colour be raped and murdered. I don't care if that isn't respected by you, because you've proven your respect is saved for terrorists and torturers. In fact, I'd know there is something wrong with me, if I were respected by you.
Shut the hell up here.
Seriously.
Created:
No wonder South Africa is being overrun with people raping and killing South Africans. You have Proteas like RM respecting this kind of activity.
Worse than Swedish cuckery, imo.
Created:
RM, you just agreed that he was a terrorist (in his adolescence), and that he didn't "overly torture or lynch" other people.
And someone this person, a confirmed terrorist, torturer and lyncher, is to be respected and freed.
You are a disgrace to South Africa.
Created:
Mandela was a terrorist who had the media cover his barbaric tracks.
"died a free and well-respected hero of South Africa" -- typical white cuck view.
Created:
Posted in:
I am sided with bsh1 on this.
Lol dude you're criticising him for being too merciful.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Yes, I actually was reading about that several days ago. Obviously, people aren't rats (at least literally), but the parallels become eerily similar, the more it's studied. Both rats and us have psychologies that adapt poorly to excessive comfort. When comfort is achieved, it's like we lose our purpose or drive in life, and we suddenly become incredibly apathetic and lazy. We're designed to be motivated, not satisfied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Again, I am not very supportive of the crackdown.
Your mercy is your fallacy
^
Lol how can you be too harsh (i.e. crackdown) and too merciful at the same time? Your detractors can't even get their story straight xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mage-CPA
How'd you copy to quote?
1) Copy-and-paste the text you'd like to quote into the blank text field
2) Highlight the text you pasted into the blank text field
3) Use the fourth option just above the text field (It looks like two sixes. If you hover over it, it says "quote").
I would agree that credit cards, like most tools, have a bad reputation. In fact, debt has a bad reputation. Debt is actually a good thing, if used responsibly.
100% agreed.
Credit cards get the blunt of it because it is difficult to get out from under excessive credit card debt, especially if you missed even one payment to go to the default rate, usually around 28-35%. Also, credit cards are easy to get, which means people who should not be offered credit are (e.g. within months of filing bankruptcy), and it is seen as predatory.
I really don't have much time or empathy for these idiots incapable of being responsible with money. If your money is so tight that you're on the brink of filing for bankruptcy, and you then decide to use a credit card which you may or may not be able to pay off, then it's your own fault.
And, of course, no one wants to admit fault, and it is easier to blame the credit card company rather than the teen who opened 10 credit cards and maxed them out on their 18th birthday.
Exactly.
I support this kind of idiot tax. The more idiots that get slugged with an astronomical interest rate, the better my rewards are for being responsible with my money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Since you're affirming, set up a debate however you wish, and I'll probably accept it.
But be warned: if history is anything to go by, I'm one of the top 5 debaters of this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It's funny. As soon as I demand that you be held accountable for your comments in a debate, you suddenly flee.
Very funny.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Common sense tells you that children who have 1 parent wholly deducated to raising them are better off than children who have parents who are half present because they are too busy working to give their children the attention they need.
Oh great, the tautology of "common sense". You sure have a great repertoire of avoiding argumentation and evidence, you know, things that actually make for convincing points.
And why do you unblock me so you can say something and then block me again so that I can't respond proper?You don't really want to have a discussion. That is what I'm getting.
Yeah, I don't want to write to you at all. But, even with you blocked (I guess you couldn't take the hint), you still manage to chime into my conversations with the same worthless opinions.
I don't want you in my threads. It's annoying that I can't prevent you from poisoning my threads with your continuous stream of unsupported opinions. You need to be deleted from this site, but since I can't do that, and since you didn't take the hint to stop posting on my threads, here is a hint that is a tiny bit easier to detect: ***fuck off***.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Rather than running your mouth like a keyboard warrior, why don't you step up to the plate and debate me?
I'd love to permanently brand your account with a humiliating loss :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The interesting thing is, the anatomy of physical embodiments require a certain environment to survive in. This can happen at many different levels conscious life and certainly well out of our capacity to observe in an endless universe. The "magic" is, is that conscious activity is never dependent on forms in creation, rather is restricted to the form it is experiencing through. Those forms are supported by the "fine-tuning" of the multi-verses.
That is not the fine-tuning argument. Again, you are completely ignorant as to what fine-tuning refers to. I'm going to show your posts to my friends so that we can laugh at you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The so-called "fine-tuning" argument of the universe is only an interpretation really, just as materialism is or atheism.
Absolutely not.
The fine-tuning argument is about attempting to prove God's existence through the complexity of the world -- that is not "only" an interpretation.
You clearly don't know what you're writing about. You should stop typing before the whole site is laughing at you.
Created:
Posted in:
The fine-tuning argument is a horrendous contradiction and a disastrously bad argument for the existence of God. If any of you disagree, I will gladly bash your arguments to a pulp in a debate.
If you seriously attempt to make a fine-tuning argument for the existence of God, you are unbelievably fucking stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Matt Dillahunty, host of "The Atheist Experience", said that the fine-tunedness of the universe was evidence of God but was not "sufficient" evidence of God.
He's wrong.
The fine-tuning argument is never evidence for the existence of the Christian God. If God created a universe that is, so to speak, out-of-tune, then He created a universe that He didn't want, hence the necessity to fine-tune. Since God is supposed to be omnipotent and all-knowing, He should have the capacity to create a universe that doesn't need fine-tuning. So, when He creates a universe that needs fine-tuning, He is either proving that He isn't omnipotent, and/or he is demonstrating that he isn't all-knowing.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
>this is still happening in 2019[more useless opinion stated without argumentation or evidence]
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Mopac is right. To women, breeding entails having less time to get educated or work, and as a consequence less chances to maintain or increase her social status. So, the higher status women have, the harder they have to work which means postpone or limit the number of children they are willing to have.
This isn't quite what Mopac implied, but I'll address it anyway.
You're making a few assumptions, in your post:
1) That breeding and education/work are in a paradigm wherein one or the other needs to be sacrificed. Whilst this is true to some extent, in that a woman cannot be a CEO (working 14+ hours a day) and raise 6 children properly (unless the father is willing to be a stay-at-home father, of which she'll come to resent), she can certainly maintain a regular job and raise children, due to modern appliances and children's education reducing the child-rearing time significantly (albeit, this is less true in poorer countries).
2) That social status is derived entirely from her place in the workplace. Whilst social status can be derived from there, it can also be derived from her place in the community, of which doesn't necessarily have to be workforce related. For example, she could be part of a high-rollers bowling club.
So, whilst women may sacrifice entering the top echelons of the corporate ladder, she isn't sacrificing anything else to have children and a job/education. As the OP expresses, I think the extinction of child birth has more to do with lower mortality rates and higher resource requirement to child rear in a 1st World country, than it does in a 3rd World country.
Created: